Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5048 Mad
Judgement Date : 10 May, 2023
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.04.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.05.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P. No. 26170 of 2021
K.Venkatesan ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Mangalampettai Police Station,
Mangalampettai,
Viruthachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Taluk Surveyor,
Mangalampettai,
Viruthachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
4. The Village Administrative Officer,
Mangalampettai,
Viruthachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
5. Marimuthu
6. Sivakasi
7. Neethimani ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 to give police protection to lay compound wall around the
petitioner's property in SF. No. 24/5A, Mangalampettai, Viruthachalam
Taluk, Cuddalore District.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Muruganandam
For Respondent : Mr. A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5 and R6
Mr. A.M.Nataraj for R7
ORDER
The writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 to give police protection to lay compound wall around the
petitioner's property measuring 4 cents in SF. No. 24/5A,
Mangalampettai, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District; that his
neighbours, who owned the property measuring 5 cents in SF. No. 24/5,
are claiming title over the petitioner's property and interfering in his
possession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
property absolutely belongs to the petitioner and the respondents 6 and 7
are interfering in his right to enjoy the property. The learned counsel
further submitted that the respondents 6 and 7 had failed in their attempt
before the Civil Court and the judgment of the Civil Court could establish
the petitioner's right. Therefore, he is entitled for protection.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the
Deputy Registrar, Registration Department which was not in favour of
the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy
Inspector General of Registration, and he had sent a report on 18.04.2023
to the respondent police stating that the respondents 6 and 7 were not
guilty of any fraudulent transactions or fraudulent registration of
documents. Thereafter, the respondent police conducted an enquiry and
submitted that it was not possible for the first respondent to enter into a
civil dispute and rejected the request of the petitioner.
4. This court finds on the averments made in the writ petition that a
direction cannot be issued to the respondent police as prayed for by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
petitioner. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and
respondents 6 and 7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the
respondents 6 and 7 in interfering in his possession, it is for him to
approach the Civil Court which would be the appropriate forum to decide
the issue on hand. It is seen that the petitioner, aggrieved by the decision
taken by the Deputy Registrar, had filed an appeal before the Deputy
Inspector General of Registration, and he had confirmed the order of the
Deputy Registrar. In such circumstances, it would not be proper for the
respondent police to decide on the title and give police protection. They
have rightly rejected the petitioner's request for police protection. The
tendency to approach the police in such matters cannot be encouraged.
No doubt, in certain cases, it may yield the desired result. That does not
mean that one should ignore the procedure prescribed under the law. A
Police Station cannot be considered as a panacea for all disputes. Hence,
this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs.
10.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
ay Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai Police Station, Mangalampettai, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.
3. The Taluk Surveyor, Mangalampettai, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.
4. The Village Administrative Officer, Mangalampettai, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
SUNDER MOHAN, J
ay
W.P. No. 26170 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 26170 / 2021
Dated: 10.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!